COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONVENTIONAL AND LIQUID-BASED CYTOLOGICAL METHODS FOR CERVICAL SMEARS

Purpose. Comparative analysis of the diagnostic value of traditional cytology (TC) and liquid cytology (LC) in the identi­fication of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cervical cancer (CC).

Patients and methots. The study included 87 women aged 18 to 80 years. All women were referred with suspicion of CIN, or underwent a control cytological examination after treatment for CIN and cervical cancer. Smears were taken sep­arately from ecto-, endocervix and mixed. Various tools were used (trowel, brushes type D, F and Cervex-Brush Combi). Each patient was sampled at the same time by different types of instruments. All surveyed women were performed at the same time traditional and fluid cytology. Liquid preparations were prepared using SurePath™ technology (BD and Company, Netherlands, USA) and E‑Prep (Biodyne, South Korea). Traditional cytological preparations were stained ac­cording to the Pappenheim method, liquid preparations — by Papanicolaou. A comparative analysis of cytological and histological findings was carried out.

Results. According to our data, the number of non-informative material practically coincides in the shopping center and in the LC, from the instruments used the best results were obtained when using a cytobrush of type D and a wood­en spatula. The frequency of detection of CIN squamous epithelium in the LC is somewhat less than in the shopping center (60% vs. 62%). This is due to the lack of experience in evaluating the life cycle drugs. Despite the fact that the overall frequency of CIN detection is somewhat lower in the LC than in the TC, the frequency of detection of high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) is higher in the LC (51% versus 46%). This is due to the fact that cellular elements are concentrated in a limited area and single small HSIL complexes that are missed in the shopping center are better detected in the LC. The sensitivity of the TC smear from the cervix was 96.2%, life cycle — 92.4%. The accuracy of the shopping center is 92%, the life cycle is 89.6%.

Conclusion. LC is an alternative to traditional cytological examination in order to detect pretumor diseases and cervical cancer. For an objective assessment of liquid preparations, additional training of cytologists is necessary.

1. Singh U, Anjum, Qureshi S, Negi N, Singh N, Goel M, Srivastava K. Comparative study between liquid-based cytology & conventional Pap smear for cytological follow up of treated patients of cancer cervix. Indian J Med Res. 2018 Mar;147 (3):263–267. DOI: 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_854_16.

2. Strander B, Andersson-Ellström A, Milsom I, Rådberg T, Ryd W. Liquid-based cytology versus conventional Papanicolaou smear in an organized screening program: a prospective randomized study. Cancer. 2007 Oct 25;111 (5):285–91.

3. Sigurdsson K. Is a liquid-based cytology more sensitive than a conventional Pap smear? Cytopathology. 2013 Aug;24 (4):254– 63. DOI: 10.1111/cyt.12037

4. Sykes PH, Harker DY, Miller A, Whitehead M, Neal H, Wells JE, Peddie D. A randomised comparison of SurePath liquid-based cytology and conventional smear cytology in a colposcopy clinic setting. BJOG. 2008 Oct;115 (11):1375–81. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471–0528.2008.01865.x

5. Hoda RS, Loukeris K, Abdul-Karim FW. Gynecologic cytology on conventional and liquid-based preparations: a comprehensive review of similarities and differences. Diagn Cytopathol. 2013 Mar;41 (3):257–78. DOI: 10.1002/dc.22842. Epub 2012 Apr 17.

6. Kituncharoen S, Tantbirojn P, Niruthisard S. Comparison of Unsatisfactory Rates and Detection of Abnormal Cervical Cytology Between Conventional Papanicolaou Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology (Sure Path®). Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16 (18):8491–4.

7. Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Vedder JE, Arbyn M, Bulten J. Caus¬es and relevance of unsatisfactory and satisfactory but limited smears of liquid-based compared with conventional cervical cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012 Jan;136 (1):76–83. DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2011–0113 OA

8. Pan QJ, Hu SY, Zhang X, Ci PW, Zhang WH, Guo HQ, et al. Pooled analysis of the performance of liquid-based cytology in popula¬tion-based cervical cancer screening studies in China. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013 Sep;121 (9):473–82. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.21297

9. Sushinskaya TV, Volchenko NN, Dobrokhotova JuE, Melnikova VYu, Petrov AN, Tugulukova AA, et al. Effectiveness Of Cytological Diagnosis Of Cervical Epithelial Neoplasia And Cervical Cancer Based On The Tissue Sampling Method. Oncogynecology. 2017;3 (23):51–9. (In Russian).

10. Castle PE, Bulten J, Confortini M, Klinkhamer P, Pellegrini A, Siebers AG, Ronco G, Arbyn M. Age-specific patterns of unsatisfac¬tory results for conventional Pap smears and liquid-based cytology: data from two randomised clinical trials. BJOG. 2010 Aug;117 (9):1067–73. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471–0528.2010.02650.x

11. Savostikova MV, Korolenkova LI, Fedoseeva ES, Pimenova VV. The Experience Of The Use Of Liquid-Based Technology BD SurePath™ For Early Diagnosis And Screening For Cervical Precancerous Lesions And Cervical Cancer In Rostov Region. Oncogynecology. 2018;4 (28):50–60. (In Russian).

12. Moyer VA. Screening for cervical cancer: U. S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jun 19;156 (12):880–91, W312. DOI: 10.7326/0003–4819–156–12–201206190–00424

13. Knight B. Cancer screening of the uterine cervix papanicolaou smears versus state-of-the-art human papillomavirus testing. Cancer Cytopathol. 2012 Apr 25;120 (2):105–7. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.20200

14. Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW, Killackey M, Kulasingam SL, Cain J, et al. ACS-ASCCP-ASCP Cervical Cancer Guideline Committee. American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012 May-Jun;62 (3):147–72. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21139. Epub 2012 Mar 14.